Does It Matter if the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Is 97% or 99.99%?
Abstract
Cook et al. reported a 97% scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), based on a study of 11,944 abstracts in peer-reviewed science journals. Powell claims that the Cook et al. methodology was flawed and that the true consensus is virtually unanimous at 99.99%. Powell’s method underestimates the level of disagreement because it relies on finding explicit rejection statements as well as the assumption that abstracts without a stated position endorse the consensus. Cook et al.’s survey of the papers’ authors revealed that papers may express disagreement with AGW despite the absence of a rejection statement in the abstract. Surveys reveal a large gap between the public perception of the degree of scientific consensus on AGW and reality. We argue that it is the size of this gap, rather than the small difference between 97% and 99.99%, that matters in communicating the true state of scientific opinion to the public.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Abraham J. P., Cook J., Fasullo J. T., Jacobs P. H., Mandia S. A., Nuccitelli D. A. (2014). Review of the consensus and asymmetric quality of research on human-induced climate change. Cosmopolis, 1, 3-18.
Anderegg W. R., Prall J. W., Harold J., Schneider S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 12107-12109.
Benestad R. E., Nuccitelli D., Lewandowsky S., Hayhoe K., Hygen H. O., Dorland R., Cook J. (2015). Learning from mistakes in climate research. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 126, 699-703.
Biddle J. B., Leuschner A. (2015). Climate skepticism and the manufacture of doubt: Can dissent in science be epistemically detrimental? European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5, 261-278.
Boykoff M. T. (2013). Public enemy no. 1? Understanding media representations of outlier views on climate change. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 796-817.
Cook J. (2016). Countering climate science denial and communicating scientific consensus. In Nisbet M. C., Ho S. S., Markowitz E., O’Neill S., Schäfer M. S., Thaker J. (Eds.), Oxford encyclopedia of climate change communication. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Cook J., Lewandowsky S., Ecker U. K. H. (in press). Neutralising misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS ONE.
Cook J., Nuccitelli D., Green S. A., Richardson M., Winkler B., Painting R., . . . Skuce A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 024024.
Cook J., Oreskes N., Doran P., Anderegg W., Verheggen B., Maibach E., . . . Rice K. (2016). Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11, 048002.
Doran P. T., Zimmerman M. K. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Earth & Space Science News, 90, 22-23.
Hess H. H. (1962). History of ocean basins. Petrologic Studies, 4, 599-620.
Isacks B., Oliver J., Sykes L. R. (1968). Seismology and the new global tectonics. Journal of Geophysical Research, 73, 5855-5899.
Legates D. R., Soon W., Briggs W. M. (2015). Climate consensus and “misinformation”: A rejoinder to agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change. Science & Education, 24, 299-318.
Leiserowitz A., Maibach E., Roser-Renouf C., Feinberg G., Rosenthal S. (2015). Climate change in the American mind: October 2015. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
Lewandowsky S., Cook J., Lloyd E. (2016). The “Alice in Wonderland” mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: Simulating coherence by conspiracism. Synthese. Advance online publication.
Lewandowsky S., Gignac G. E., Vaughan S. (2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3, 399-404.
Losh S. C. (2016). Agreement among environmental scientists higher than previously thought. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 35, 119-120.
Myers T. A., Maibach E., Peters E., Leiserowitz A. (2015). Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: The results of two experiments. PLoS ONE, 10, e0120985.
Ollier C. D. (2006). A plate tectonics failure: The geological cycle and conservation of continents and oceans. Annals of Geophysics, 49, 427-436.
Oreskes N. (1999). The rejection of continental drift: Theory and method in American earth science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Oreskes N. (2004a). Science and public policy: What’s proof got to do with it? Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 369-383.
Oreskes N. (2004b). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306, 1686.
Oreskes N. (2007). The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong? In Dimento J. F. C., Doughman P. (Eds.), Climate change: What it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren (pp. 65-99). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Oreskes N., Conway E. M. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
Pew Research Center. (2015). An Elaboration of AAAS Scientists’ Views. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/files/2015/07/Report-AAAS-Members-Elaboration_FINAL.pdf
Plass G. N. (1956). The carbon dioxide theory of climatic change. Tellus, 8, 140-154.
Plutzer E., McCaffrey M., Hannah A. L., Rosenau J., Berbeco M., Reid A. H. (2016). Climate confusion among U.S. teachers. Science, 351, 664-665.
Powell J. L. (2015). Four revolutions in the earth sciences: From heresy to truth. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Powell J. L. (2016). Climate scientists virtually unanimous: Anthropogenic global warming is true. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 35, 121-124.
Runcorn S. K. (1965). Palaeomagnetic comparisons between Europe and North America. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 258(1088), 1-11.
Scalera G. (2003). The expanding earth: A sound idea for the new millennium. In Scalera G., Jacob K.-H. (Eds.), Why expanding earth? A book in honour of Ott Christoph Hilgenberg (pp. 181-232). Italy, Rome: INGV.
Scimago. (2007). Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Retrieved from http://www.scimagojr.com/
Shwed U., Bearman P. S. (2010). The temporal structure of scientific consensus formation. American Sociological Review, 75, 817-840.
Spencer R. W., Braswell W. D., Christy J. R., Hnilo J. (2007). Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L15707.
van der Linden S. L., Leiserowitz A. A., Feinberg G. D., Maibach E. W. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS ONE, 10, e0118489.
van der Linden S., Leiserowitz A., Maibach E. W. (2016). Communicating the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is an effective and depolarizing public engagement strategy: Experimental evidence from a large national replication study. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2733956
van der Linden S., Leiserowitz A., Rosenthal S., Maibach E. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1, 1600008.
Vine F. J., Matthews D. H. (1963). Magnetic anomalies over oceanic ridges. Nature, 199, 947-949.
Weart S. R. (2008). The discovery of global warming. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Biographies
Andrew G. Skuce is a geophysical consultant based in British Columbia, Canada. He has an interest in tectonics and structural geology and has been a contributor to the Skeptical Science website since 2010.
John Cook is a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, researching cognitive science. He founded Skeptical Science, and co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts and Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis.
Mark Richardson develops satellite cloud retrievals and uses satellite data to observe changes on Earth and test the physics behind projections of climate change.
Bärbel Winkler lives and works in Fellbach, Germany and joined the Skeptical Science team in 2010, serving as a translator for German-language content. Since 2013 she has been coordinating the translation efforts for all languages and is a blogger for the site.
Ken Rice is professor of Computational Astrophysics in the Institute for Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh. His primary research involves using numerical simulations to investigate the formation of stars and planets.
Sarah A. Green is a professor of environmental chemistry at Michigan Technological University. Her research interests include optical properties of natural waters and aerosols, and environmental changes in the Great Lakes watershed.
Peter Jacobs is a PhD student at George Mason University, studying paleoclimate and climate impacts on marine ecosystems.
Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist based in Sacramento, California, and a climate blogger for The Guardian and Skeptical Science.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: May 2, 2017
Issue published: October 2016
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 1106
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 0
Crossref: 8
-
Ninety-Nine Percent? Re-Examining the Consensus on the Anthropogenic C...
-
Recalculating climate change consensus: The question of position and r...
-
Creative (Climate) Communications
-
The credibility of scientific communication sources regarding climate ...
-
The “Danger” of Consensus Messaging: Or, Why to Shift From Skeptic-Fir...
-
10. Climate Change and Environmental Public Health
-
The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters
-
Why It Matters: U.S. Adult Perceptions of Environmental Scientist Agre...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
